A cat among the pigeons
It seems that the rumours are true: some pharmacists in Scotland are
thinking about creating a new professional body — despite comments
in last week’s issue of The
Journal that the future professional body for pharmacy should
be one
GB (or even UK) organisation, albeit with a federal structure (PJ,
19 January 2008, p43).
After that issue had gone to press, we learnt
that a group of leading pharmacists had attended a meeting in Glasgow,
organised
by the two schools of pharmacy in Scotland. To the surprise of some of
those present, proposals for the formation
of a new collegiate pharmacy body were discussed (p71).
Details are patchy and none of those involved was able to comment on
the record this week. However, some people who were at the meeting told
The Journal that the collegiate body is being set up to promote research,
particularly practice-based research, and that it will operate in addition
to any professional pharmacy body formed from the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society.
Some left the meeting under the definite impression that the aim of the
collegiate body is to become Scotland’s professional pharmacy body,
in direct competition with the Society, although this has been denied
by others whowere there.
Also causing confusion is how the collegiate body will be funded. Some
of those at the meeting indicated that the Scottish Government is to
provide financial support. If this is true, it will raise serious concerns
over its independence. For how could the collegiate body disagree with
a Government position if its very survival came down to Government money?
There are other questions to be answered as well. Why have the organisers
chosen this moment to put a cat among the pigeons? Surely it would have
made sense to wait until pharmacists and pharmacy bodies all over Britain
have had a chance to consider —
probably towards the end of this year — whether the GB-wide organisation
that is likely to emerge
from the Clarke Inquiry (p71) will provide pharmacists
with the support that they want.
Perhaps the organisers of last week’s
meeting would even find that their own hopes and expectations would be
met by it. If not, then that would be the time to create an alternative
body.
The Journal hopes that all those floating the idea of the collegiate
body, especially with the question marks over how it will be funded and
to whom it may be accountable, will produce some answers soon.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal